NASA’s Commercial Crew Catch 22 as another $424m heads to Russia

[QuantumG]

Currently, there is no acquisition strategy for Capability D (crew transport).

See page 399 (Exp-46):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf

Yep, that's just saying they haven't received funding for it.

There was a $113.9M carry over from the previous year, which is why they were only requesting the remaining $32M, as you can see in the FY09 budget request. For FY10 there was an attempt to rescind it but it failed and the funds were redirected to CRS payments.

However, funding was provided for commercial crew in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and the amount was for $100M (not $150M). However, an amount of $150M was discussed as part of the stimulus bill in 2009 but this amount was eventually reduced to $50M by Senator Shelby.   

Yes, that all happened after the earlier funding that Nelson is discussing.. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[yg1968]

I can't find the numbers that you have mentioned. All I see is funding for COTS A to C in the FY 2009 Budget and in the FY 2009 Appropriation bill.

Nelson was talking about the amounts that were authorized in the 2008 Authorization Act. See the quote below. 

Senator Nelson. In last year's authorization bill [2008], there was guidance to NASA about COTS-D Space Act agreements to develop a U.S. commercial alternative to Soyuz. We authorized $150 million in funding for COTS-D. I noticed that you are putting $150 million of stimulus funds toward the Commercial Crew and Cargo program, but not actually initiating COTS-D agreements. Why are you not initiating these Space Act agreements?

http://quantumg.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/how-cots-d-was-killed.html

But Nelson mis-remembered the actual number that was authorized in the 2008 Authorization Act which was $100M (not $150M).

101(3) For Exploration, $4,886,000,000, of which—
(A) $3,886,000,000 shall be for baseline exploration activities, of which $100,000,000 shall be for the activities under sections 902(a)(4) and 902(d),

902(a) (4) issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with 2 or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.

902(d) CREW TRANSFER AND CREW RESCUE SERVICES CONTRACT.—

Nelson is calling the 2008 "Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program", COTS-D for lack of a better name for it. But it' official name in the legislation was the "phase 1 COTS crewed vehicle demonstration program". NASA later renamed this program "CCDev" to avoid the confusion that existed at that time between the new program (which was created by the 2008 Authorization bill) and the 2006 COTS-D program.   

[QuantumG]

I can't find the numbers that you have mentioned. All I see is funding for COTS A to C in the FY 2009 Budget and in the FY 2009 Appropriation bill.

You can't see the $32M in the column under commercial crew and cargo? That topped up the commercial crew and cargo account to $150M which was intended to go to COTS-D.

Nelson was talking about the amounts that were authorized in the 2008 Authorization Act.

Yep, you're certainly right about that, but that's not all he's talking about. If you read on, he says:

Senator Nelson. We had a unique opportunity, if NASA had listened and followed the law, we had a unique opportunity this year between the 2009 operating plan and the additional funds provided by the stimulus bill and the development of the 2010 budget to craft a COTS-D plan that would have funded the program at the level that the folks needed. That path was not pursued. NASA did not obey the law.

But Nelson mis-remembered the actual number that was authorized in the 2008 Authorization Act was $100M (not $150M).

I'm sure he "misremembered" it when he got the top-up into the FY09 appropriations too.

902(a) (4) issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with 2 or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.

902(d) CREW TRANSFER AND CREW RESCUE SERVICES CONTRACT.—

Nelson is calling the "Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program", COTS-D. But he should have called it "the phase 1 COTS crewed vehicle demonstration program". This program was later renamed by NASA "CCDev" to avoid the confusion that existed at that time between the new program (which was created by the 2008 Authorization bill) and the 2006 COTS-D program.   

Nonsense.. CCDev didn't exist and was a completely different program. The fact that SpaceX was the only partner for COTS-D didn't prevent NASA from enabling the option. As Nelson said, NASA failed to follow the direction given to them. Again you have to resort to saying Nelson is saying something that he's not. When he says COTS-D, he means COTS-D. The man knows the name of the program he had been fighting for years to get funded.

[yg1968]

What page is this $32M on? I don't see it.

At the time appropriations for COTS were included in the general heading "commercial crew and cargo".  But you have to look at the breakdown in the appropriation to see what that entails. The explanation of the FY 2009 Appropriation bill indicates that all of the funding for FY 2009 for commercial crew and cargo had to go to COTS-A to C. No funds were left for COTS-D.

Senator Nelson. We had a unique opportunity, if NASA had listened and followed the law, we had a unique opportunity this year between the 2009 operating plan and the additional funds provided by the stimulus bill and the development of the 2010 budget to craft a COTS-D plan that would have funded the program at the level that the folks needed. That path was not pursued. NASA did not obey the law.

Nelson is complaining that no funds were appropriated for commercial crew in FY 2009 which is true. But NASA had to obey section 902 of the 2008 Authorization Act. So it was forced to create a program that had at least 2 providers. There was no way around the 2008 Authorization Act.

However, you might be able to argue that NASA could have decided to create a new COTS-D competition for a second provider (and exercised the existing COTS-D agreement with SpaceX). This option would have been consistent with section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill. But NASA decided against this. They decided instead to create a new competition which ended up being called CCDev-1. CCDev-1 was created in order to fulfill the obligations of section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill. CCDev-1 predates the 2010 NASA Authorization bill.

[QuantumG]

What page is this $32M on? I don't see it.

You're right, it's bundled in the $173M.

At the time appropriations for COTS were included in the general heading "commercial crew and cargo".  But you have to look at the breakdown in the appropriation to see what that entails. The explanation of the FY 2009 Appropriation bill indicates that all of the funding for FY 2009 for commercial crew and cargo had to go to COTS-A to C. No funds were left for COTS-D.

In the 2009 operating plan there was wiggle room on that.

Nelson is complaining that no funds were appropriated for commercial crew in FY 2009 which is true.

He's saying exactly the opposite! How can you possibly interpret "additional" to mean anything else?

So it was forced to create a program that had at least 2 providers. There was no way around the 2008 Authorization Act.

Nonsense. NASA only pays attention to the authorization act when it benefits them. At ISDC 2009 Alan Lindenmoyer outright said that they would have enacted COTS-D if they had the full $300M in early 2009. I know because I asked the question.

However, you might be able to argue that NASA could have decided to create a new COTS-D competition for a second provider (and exercised the existing COTS-D agreement with SpaceX). But they decided against this. They decided instead to create a new competition which ended up being called CCDev-1.

Yeah, or just ignored the second provider and said "we signed the contract with SpaceX already, we don't need a new competition".

But CCDev-1 was created by the 2008 NASA Authorization bill. CCDev-1 predated the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.

Yeah, it just wasn't called that, right? Changing the meaning of words again.

[yg1968]

I think that you are right about the 2009 operating plan. It seems that the 2009 Appropriation bill was only enacted in March of 2009. So perhaps, there was some wiggle room between October 1, 2008 and March 2009 (before the FY 2009 appropriation bill was enacted).

It seems that NASA took the position that its new program (which ended up being called CCDev-1 once it was finalized) fulfilled the obligations of section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. Perhaps Nelson disagreed with them. It's hard to tell from that brief exchange.

What Scolese describes here is essentially the framework of what ended up being called CCDev:

Mr. Scolese. We discussed that, and we believe that we need to take a measured approach to developing commercial crew. As you know, again it is a very difficult prospect to develop a crewed vehicle to carry crews safely to and from space, let alone rendezvous and dock with the Space Station. So we are working a measured development where we work progressively from developing the capability to get into space, to conduct the rendezvous and docking with the Space Station, to crew rescue, which can be done without having to worry about crew escape, all the way up to carrying crew. That is the philosophy that we are working to achieve. To do that, we needed to do some things that broadly help the community that wants to do this, as I mentioned earlier, about developing clear and concise specs and standards so that we can safely put our crew on those vehicles. And further, I think you have seen the annual report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel that had some questions about the detail of our human rating requirements. So that is all part of what we are trying to accomplish, and we believe that will get us a commercial crew capability quicker and safer than if we were to just go off and suggest that we fund a capability.

[QuantumG]

Yeah, the "make paper" alternative.

I think it's fun that the thing people criticize Griffin most for - seat of the pants engineering, pasting over the gaps and just going off half-cocked - is what would have given us commercial crew faster, if he'd managed to get it funded.

There's nothing wrong with just saying "demonstrate you can do it" and paying on success. It's what was done for cargo and it could have been done for crew too.

[joek]

Arguably NASA tied its hands with the original COTS solicitation in 2007 (emphasis added)...

2.1 Approach

...  Proposals for crew transportation Capability D must also include a Capability C demonstration.  If proposed, a separate Capability D demonstration shall be planned to follow a successful demonstration of Capability C. Participants are not precluded from incorporating crew transportation technical performance goals in the proposals for Capability C. The execution of the Capability D demonstration may be contingent upon additional NASA funding availability.

... NASA intends to use its Space Act authority to enter into at least one and potentially multiple funded agreements resulting from this announcement.

2.2 Project Schedule

... The Capability D flight demonstration support is planned to commence upon successful demonstration of Capability C and will extend for the length of time proposed and negotiated to complete the demonstration objectives.

3.5 Capability D: Crew Transportation

3.5.1 Comply with NPR 8705.2A, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems. (A copy of NPR 8705.2A is located within the COTS website Technical Library. A revision to NPR 8705.2A is in work but will not be approved in time for this Announcement.)

A conservative interpretation of the above might be "demonstrate COTS C then we'll consider COTS D" and, "We don't have final human rating requirements (NPR 8705.2A, which AFAICT is still a work in progress today), but whatever they are, you'll have to comply with them, and BTW we won't proceed with COTS D until 8705.2A is final."

[yg1968]

Yeah, the "make paper" alternative.

I think it's fun that the thing people criticize Griffin most for - seat of the pants engineering, pasting over the gaps and just going off half-cocked - is what would have given us commercial crew faster, if he'd managed to get it funded.

There's nothing wrong with just saying "demonstrate you can do it" and paying on success. It's what was done for cargo and it could have been done for crew too.

Even Musk admits that he under estimated the price of commercial crew development.

I never heard Griffin defend COTS-D very much. He made so many statements about commercial companies not being able to deliver laundry to the ISS. I have trouble believing that he was a strong proponent for it.

[joek]

Even Musk admits that he under estimated the price of commercial crew development.

True, and NASA as "old and wise father" may very well have saved Musk from himself.  It's great that Musk was and is gung-ho and willing to push the envelope, but SpaceX going broke trying to achieve COTS-D and leaving another fatality (along with RpK) would have served little purpose and set NASA-CRS-CCP back years.

[john smith 19]

CST-100 doesn't seem like it's very far along, or Boeing are very lax in the PR department... I have no worries about Atlas, only the capsule. And I think DC is farther ahead and Dragon a better capsule.

SpaceX may seem more interested but there's also more money there to be made. Not sure why you would think they are lacking interest enough in crew Dragon.

It seems hard to say how far Boeing are along with their capsule. They don't talk about it much, which seems odd for a major LV builder.

It is however the only other one that got the full (after Congress knocked them all down) award.

The question is does Boeing's reputation for past systems count for more than Spacex's plans to upgrade a capsule designed and built with SoA systems and materials which is actually flying and which is giving them real life data on what works, and more importantly what does not.

[QuantumG]

Even Musk admits that he under estimated the price of commercial crew development.

When and where?

I never heard Griffin defend COTS-D very much.

Then you haven't been listening.

He made so many statements about commercial companies not being able to deliver laundry to the ISS.

He made accurate statements about that. Specifically, that his successors didn't wait until the cargo demonstration missions were done before handing over billion dollar contracts. Contracts which they now regret and probably will reneg on. This is just basic common sense.. you don't remove the carrot from in front of the donkey's nose until you get the cargo on its back to where it's gotta go.

I have trouble believing that he was a strong proponent for it.

Your belief is not required, it's a fact.

[Mader Levap]

I have trouble believing that he was a strong proponent for it.

Your belief is not required, it's a fact.

I cannot fathom how you can think Griffin was ever friend of commercial space. He allowed it only because he fully expected it to fail, everyone ending up like Kistler.

Then Griffin would came on white horse, bringing his oversized rocket and saying "see, we give them try, they failed *snicker*. Time for goverment calvarly using biggest phallic symbol rocket known to man to rescue HSF!".

This plan of course backfired horribly.

[yg1968]

Even Musk admits that he under estimated the price of commercial crew development.

When and where?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704726104575290604217670696.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Still, Mr. Musk's self-confidence, combined with some slipups, contributed to the cash crunch at SpaceX. When the company and NASA started discussing potential manned missions for Falcon 9, Mr. Musk boldly predicted he could provide reliable crew-escape hardware for less than $350 million, a projection that was ridiculed within the industry. "That was, in retrospect, naively low," Mr. Musk now concedes.

Since President Obama has asked Congress to fund commercial manned flights, SpaceX has recalibrated its estimate, saying it needs about $1 billion to develop and deploy an emergency escape system.

Pasztor got a bit confused (as explained in the link below), Musk meant that the entire crewed development would cost $1B (not just the LAS) as opposed to his original estimate of $350M. But Musk did admit that his original estimates of $350M for the development of commercial crew were "naively low". 

See also the link below where Musk clarified what he meant:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=27458

See also this article where Musk's estimates for commercial crew development went from $500M to $1B:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/18spacex/

"If a reasonable number of test articles and abort flights are assumed, then the total development cost to get crew to station and meet all the NASA requirements is probably around $1 billion and three years from initial contract award," Musk told Spaceflight Now Monday. [...] Musk acknowledged his estimates are "a bit fuzzy" and will depend on the safety requirements levied by NASA. He has long publicly disclosed it would cost roughly $500 million for the hardware modifications themselves, but a "huge variable is what level of testing is required, how many tons of paperwork and how many qualification articles need to be built," Musk said, emphasizing extras could push the cost closer to $1 billion.

[yg1968]

He made accurate statements about that. Specifically, that his successors didn't wait until the cargo demonstration missions were done before handing over billion dollar contracts. Contracts which they now regret and probably will reneg on. This is just basic common sense.. you don't remove the carrot from in front of the inaccurate person's nose until you get the cargo on its back to where it's gotta go.

I am not sure what you mean by your comment. CRS was awarded in December 2008 when Griffin was still NASA Administrator (Griffin stepped own in January 2009).

As far as Griffin is concerned. I recently listened to the Space Show on which he was a guest. Griffin made the point that he was in favour of putting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not at the beginning) for commercial programs. He said that giving money up front was a subsidy and that he was against subsidies. He also made the point that he was against some of the things that were done with cargo after he left. I am not sure what he meant by that. I am guessing that he means that he was against the additional funds of $300M that was injected in COTS for additional milestones through the 2010 NASA Authorization bill.

Regardless what Griffin said on the Space Show, he appeared on a number of hearings and wrote articles stating that commercial crew companies were not ready and that we shouldn't "bet the farm" on them. It's hard to see him as a proponent of commercial crew because of this.

[yg1968]

Arguably NASA tied its hands with the original COTS solicitation in 2007 (emphasis added)...

2.1 Approach

...  Proposals for crew transportation Capability D must also include a Capability C demonstration.  If proposed, a separate Capability D demonstration shall be planned to follow a successful demonstration of Capability C. Participants are not precluded from incorporating crew transportation technical performance goals in the proposals for Capability C. The execution of the Capability D demonstration may be contingent upon additional NASA funding availability.

... NASA intends to use its Space Act authority to enter into at least one and potentially multiple funded agreements resulting from this announcement.

2.2 Project Schedule

... The Capability D flight demonstration support is planned to commence upon successful demonstration of Capability C and will extend for the length of time proposed and negotiated to complete the demonstration objectives.

3.5 Capability D: Crew Transportation

3.5.1 Comply with NPR 8705.2A, Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems. (A copy of NPR 8705.2A is located within the COTS website Technical Library. A revision to NPR 8705.2A is in work but will not be approved in time for this Announcement.)

A conservative interpretation of the above might be "demonstrate COTS C then we'll consider COTS D" and, "We don't have final human rating requirements (NPR 8705.2A, which AFAICT is still a work in progress today), but whatever they are, you'll have to comply with them, and BTW we won't proceed with COTS D until 8705.2A is final."

I think that NASA also tied its hands by accepting Orbital's COTS proposal over Boeing's proposal in 2008. Boeing's capsule could have offered a COTS-D option. Orbital only submitted a bid for COTS A and B.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

[Prober]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

[guckyfan]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

Is there any fix but increase funding of CCiCap?

They could have concentrated on one, but that option was in the past.

[yg1968]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

The solution is kind of related to the discussion that we were having:
Solution A- increase funding to $821M per year or
Solution B- Continue under SAAs as long as possible and reduce paperwork to a minimum.

Both solutions will be difficult to implement politically. But Solution A is probably easier to push than B at this point. 

[john smith 19]

The solution is kind of related to the discussion that we were having:
Solution A- increase funding to $821M per year or
Solution B- Continue under SAAs as long as possible and reduce paperwork to a minimum.

Both solutions will be difficult to implement politically. But Solution A is probably easier to push than B at this point. 

Sounds right. I think the results on the contracts the 3 providers have to produce a certification plan that will demonstrate how they will comply with NASA crew rating requirements while avoiding absolutely everything being scrutinized (with the right to change/reject it) by NASA will be a key part of this.

I think the fact that Spacex were able to persuade NASA to telescope 3 test flights into 2 is quite encouraging, given the HSF part of NASA seems very uncomfortable with anything not built under FAR25.